Gun or Guitar? Desisions,decisons!

[totamus]

My problem isn't with the presence of guns, it's with the presence of people that act like the possession of assault rifles is as unalienable a right as the freedom of speech. US Conservative gun culture is quite frightening to us foreigners. It's the kind of attitude, that reveres and worships the Gun as a bringer of freedom, or that regards threads like this as perfectly sociable, that leads to people being overconfident, and people who perhaps shouldn't own guns owning them. Of course you can say the same thing about cars to an extent, and that's why we have penalty points etc. I would never ban all guns, but sometimes I feel like we should ban reactionary idiots.

 

 

I don't mind a discussion on firearms, there are two camps of good conscience, each with their own points. I fall on the "right to self defense is inalienable" side.

 

But what really gets me going is when someone tries to construct an argument that some rifles and handguns are less acceptable than others because of the way they look.

 

That is either sheer lunacy based on ignorance of weapons (an "assault" weapon does not kill you any deader than a hunting rifle) or it is a disingenuous method of controlling gun ownership while at the same time saying you are for gun rights.

 

I don't really care if the American right is frightening to foreigners. The socialist left is just as frightening to me.

 

To quote John Lennon (rather ballsy, I know) "Instant Karma's gonna get you". A legally owned weapon discharged to protect ones home and loved ones is the ultimate in Instant Karma.

 

Any call I make to 911 is likely to be to report a home invasion shooting, and not a request for rescue and assistance.

 

If that makes me a reactionary idiot then so be it. I will be a reactionary idiot who is alive to tell the tale.

 

And to the point, the right to bear arms is as much of a right as the right to free speech. You may not like this, but it is the way our constitution was written.

[garthman]

. . . . But what really gets me going is when someone tries to construct an argument that some rifles and handguns are less acceptable than others because of the way they look. . . . . . . . To quote John Lennon (rather ballsy, I know) "Instant Karma's gonna get you". A legally owned weapon discharged to protect ones home and loved ones is the ultimate in Instant Karma.

 

 

I agree with your first statement, Mike, but would humbly point out that the handgun, because of its size and portability, is responsible for more deaths in the USA than any other weapon and perhaps controlling handgun ownership a tad more carefully might help?. It is actually quite possible to own a gun in the UK - licenses are fairly readily granted for shotguns and target rifles, for example - but it is virtually impossible to obtain a (legal) handgun.

 

. . . . . And maybe John Lennon is not a good guy to mention in this context?

[Chordchunker]

I agree with your first statement, Mike, but would humbly point out that the handgun, because of its size and portability, is responsible for more deaths in the USA than any other weapon and perhaps controlling handgun ownership a tad more carefully might help?. It is actually quite possible to own a gun in the UK - licenses are fairly readily granted for shotguns and target rifles, for example - but it is virtually impossible to obtain a (legal) handgun. . . . . . And maybe John Lennon is not a good guy to mention in this context?

 

 

I would like to see those stats please. Not trying to argu but honestly interested. All I can find are these kind of charts..

 

http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

[Chordchunker]

This one is kind of interesting:

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

[totamus]

I agree with your first statement, Mike, but would humbly point out that the handgun, because of its size and portability, is responsible for more deaths in the USA than any other weapon and perhaps controlling handgun ownership a tad more carefully might help?. It is actually quite possible to own a gun in the UK - licenses are fairly readily granted for shotguns and target rifles, for example - but it is virtually impossible to obtain a (legal) handgun. . . . . . And maybe John Lennon is not a good guy to mention in this context?

 

 

Quoting John was without a doubt pretty ballsy, but the instant karma bit was too good to pass up.

 

To be sure, handguns in the USA are responsible for many deaths. But the the point that is so often lost is the whole issue of legal vs illegal handguns. There are few deaths caused by legitimate owners of handguns. The problem we have is the inability to enforce our own laws. I would have no problem with strict enforcement of our existing gun laws which state that convicted felons may not own guns.

 

The problem I have is when our spineless politicians try to capitalize on the crime problem by passing more and stricter gun laws as a populist measure. We don't need more laws, and we don't need guns removed from law abiding citizens. But enforcing existing laws is hard and requires determination and willpower.

 

Much easier to simply pass more laws so that they can appear to be concerned and tough on crime. Our most violent cities are already banning guns, and crime flourishes.

 

Nobody advocates complete lack of gun regulation. Criminals and the mentally infirm cannot be allowed to have guns, and those laws are already on the books. Every state that has eased gun control on law abiding citizens has seen a reduction in crime and death rate. Conversely, every state that has it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain guns has seen an increase in crime.

 

Passing a law is meaningless if there is no enforcement.

 

Our death rate vs the UK is truly alarming, but it is not the fault of legally armed citizens, it is a tragic consequence of a broken society. We have gangs whose initiation rites include the killing of rival gang's members. We have areas that are so crime ridden that the police will not go into them.

 

Guns didn't cause this any more than food causes obesity. I think the whole gun issue is a contrived hot point that keeps us at each others throats so that we don't notice our government's inability to provide safety and a cohesive society.

 

For what it is worth, if you get away from our large cities, America is a peaceful place with people who respect one another. But that is far too complex to be reduced to sound bites for the evening news.

[Jersey Jack]

But what really gets me going is when someone tries to construct an argument that some rifles and handguns are less acceptable than others because of the way they look. That is either sheer lunacy based on ignorance of weapons (an "assault" weapon does not kill you any deader than a hunting rifle) or it is a disingenuous method of controlling gun ownership while at the same time saying you are for gun rights.

Well, the argument against assault rifles is not really based on looks but rather on their firepower and especially on their ability to fire multiple rounds. I simply don't believe that people should have weapons that enable them to out-gun the police. For me, this is about protecting the lives of police officers.

The only reason to own a weapon like this is the belief that one will someday have to defend oneself against the US government. This is what is often called (rightly) the paranoid style of American politics.

I don't really care if the American right is frightening to foreigners. The socialist left is just as frightening to me.

We're really not at all frightening. I agree that no one wants a nanny state, which is where the left imo goes astray. We're just concerned that people are fed, treated fairly, and have access to health care. This is scary to you?

That wild thumping sound you hear is Lennon rolling over in his grave! (I know, I know, he was deposited in the Atlantic Ocean--this is poetic license. We liberals love poetry!)

Finally, I would imagine that more children are killed and maimed from gun accidents at home than violent home invaders. Just a guess...I may be wrong. If so, I'm sure someone will correct me.

[garthman]

I would like to see those stats please. Not trying to argu but honestly interested.

USA Homicides By Weapon (courtesy of Wiki):

[valentsgrif]

I simply don't believe that people should have weapons that enable them to out-gun the police. The only reason to own a weapon like this is the belief that one will someday have to defend oneself against the US government. This is what is often called (rightly) the paranoid style of American politics.

 

Police have fully automatic assault rifles. Us civilians are generally only bearing semi auto rifles, so that myth goes.

 

Civilization hangs by a narrow thread. Events can spin out of control in unpredictable and unforseeable ways. Do you think the civilized pre WW II Europe, with electricty, telephones, music and literature, automobiles and modern universities ever saw the conflagration that was to come in the 1940's? Do you ever think to ask if the heroes of the Warsaw ghetto uprising or the French resistance ever wished they had "assault" weapons?

 

One never knows what catastrophy could occur: natural disasters, large scale electrical blackouts, compromised fresh water supplies, food chain interruptions, ect. could unsettle large components of domestic order. Remember the LA riots? That crazyness burned for days, with city police not always charging in to restore order. Was the infamous Korean grocer who stood on the rooftop of his untouched store in the midst of looting and burning "paranoid" because he brandished an AR 15 rifle?

 

You gun phobes should stay gun free, God bless you. But do not seek to impose your paranoia about guns on those of us who plan for life a little more realistically.

[FretFiend.]

...The only reason to own a weapon like this is the belief that one will someday have to defend oneself against the US government. This is what is often called (rightly) the paranoid style of American politics...

The need to defend oneself from the government is not as farfetched as you might think, assuming you do think. Look around the world. It happens all the time. The US government is stable now, but who knows what a few more years of liberal influence will do to it.

[totamus]

We're really not at all frightening. I agree that no one wants a nanny state, which is where the left imo goes astray. We're just concerned that people are fed, treated fairly, and have access to health care. This is scary to you?

This is just insulting. The implication is that the conservatives have no interest in people having health care, being feed or treated fairly. Preposterous. While it is convenient for your puppet masters to demonize the conservatives in this fashion (so that you will have a foe to rally against), the truth is that the difference between the right and the left is not in outcomes (we all want well fed, happy and safe populations), it is in methods. The Left wants to give fish to the starving. The Right wants to teach the starving to fish.

The left believes that a public dole is a fair distribution of a nations resources. The right believes that a public dole is a dead end trap that ensnares entire generations.

And yes, the left is very frightening. Unable to win over the electorate, the left seeks to demonize dissenters (as you have just done) and to use any any possible means to implement their agenda. Bill Ayers is a good example of this. He was ready to exterminate 10s of millions of US citizens as a necessary part of the the transformation of America. Look it up if you do not believe me.

Look at the current issue of Newsweek. It perfectly proves a point.


Unable to win in the arena of public debate, Newsweek finds it expedient to paint those who disagree with Obama as bigoted, small minded, angry, islamophobic reactionaries.

Yep, the left is all about inclusion and an open exchange of ideas alright. As long as you march in step and dare not think for yourself.

[FretFiend.]

There are no weapons or ammunition available legally that can outgun the police. You must have Federal Firearms Dealer license to own an automatic weapon. The Left, and the media likes to use the scary term "Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon" to make gullible people think that the weapon is an automatic. A semi-automatic weapon is one that shoots one time when you pull the trigger. "Semi-automatic" means that another round is automatically chambered and the weapon is then ready to fire again when the trigger is pulled the next time. The term "Asault Weapon" is completely meaningless. It refers to weapon that looks scary. A modern hunting rifle is a semi-automatic weapon that fires once each time the trigger is pulled, just like an "assault weapon". "Modern" meaning designed and produced in the last 100 years. This is just insulting. The implication is that the conservatives have no interest in people having health care, being feed or treated fairly. Preposterous. While it is convenient for your puppet masters to demonize the conservatives in this fashion (so that you will have a foe to rally against), the truth is that the difference between the right and the left is not in outcomes (we all want well fed, happy and safe populations), it is in methods. The Left wants to give fish to the starving. The Right wants to teach the starving to fish. The left believes that a public dole is a fair distribution of a nations resources. The right believes that a public dole is a dead end trap that ensnares entire generations. And yes, the left is very frightening. Unable to win over the electorate, the left seeks to demonize dissenters (as you have just done) and to use any any possible means to implement their agenda. Bill Ayers is a good example of this. He was ready to exterminate 10s of millions of US citizens as a necessary part of the the transformation of America. Look it up if you do not believe me. Look at the current issue of Newsweek. It perfectly proves a point. Unable to win in the arena of public debate, Newsweek finds it expedient to paint those who disagree with Obama as bigoted, small minded, angry, islamophobic reactionaries. Yep, the left is all about inclusion and an open exchange of ideas alright. As long as you march in step and dare not think for yourself.

Damn! Totamus, always the voice of reason and logic. I don't know what to say... except :thu:

Somehow, I suspect that JJ will find a way to distort the facts to support his position tho, as usual.

[poppytater]

peace

[Jersey Jack]

I appreciate the education about assault weapons--clearly I misunderstood the business of automatic v. semi-automatic. I also appreciate the argument about the Warsaw Ghetto. It's possible that a well-armed population may have made a difference.

But the whole business goes off the rails with the implication that the Obama administration is somehow the equivalent to the Nazis--which is to my mind the implication of what you're saying. Isn't it just a little paranoid to suggest that we have a pressing need to defend ourselves against the US government? Sure, I suppose it could happen, but...do you all really believe this is a practical concern? Doesn't that lead to Timothy McVeigh and militias? And once again, I'm not advocating that guns be banned, only controlled in reasonable and transparent ways. This is the position of the democratic party, with the exception of a few outliers.

How on earth do you come to the conclusion that I'm demonizing anyone? I'm making reasoned arguments, and If someone shows me that I'm wrong, I will acknowledge that I'm wrong (see semi-automatic, above).

And I'm not at all against teaching people how to fish--I'm simply not willing to let them starve if they fail, or if economic conditions or the power of the wealthy put them at a disadvantage. The implication behind your position is that everyone who can't feed their family or can't afford health care is lazy. Is that reasonable? If I'm wrong here, how do you propose to deal with those who fail?

And if you guys really believe Obama is a socialist, you really need to read some history and political philosophy.

[garthman]

The USA (generally) hasn't the faintest idea what socialism is or means.

Socialism: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

[FretFiend.]

Is that reasonable? If I'm wrong here, how do you propose to deal with those who fail? And if you guys really believe Obama is a socialist, you really need to read some history and political philosophy...

Exhibit B for your "demonizing". You try to label anyone who does not support Obama as believing he is a "socialist."

I for one, see through your smoke screen of discrediting, demonizing, and just plain deception. These are not "reasoned arguments" or "discussions" They are lame attempts at justifying your radical views.

I don't buy any of it. Your credibility with me is zero... but you probably already know that... and you don't care.

[fastblueheeler]

The USA (generally) hasn't the faintest idea what socialism is or means. Socialism: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

OK, got it! I can't wait to be edgicatin' my friends and neighbors with this information.

[garthman]

OK, got it! I can't wait to be edgicatin' my friends and neighbors with this information.

More education would be a very good thing

[totamus]

The USA (generally) hasn't the faintest idea what socialism is or means. Socialism: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

 

 

You may be right Howard. What you have described I was taught is communism. Socialism, as we were taught, is more like communism light. The state does not own the means of production but does exercise great control through rules, regulations and tax codes. Wealth is redistributed under socialism, but the means of production, though heavily controlled, is still owned by individuals.

 

By this definition (mine, not yours), we (the USA) have become a socialist state. So has Great Briton and all of Europe.

[fastblueheeler]

More education would be a very good thing

I agree, but the text book definition of socialism means very little to anyone who is not trying to make a point on an internet forum.

But educate me on this Garth, why are Europeans so obsessed with gun laws in the USA? There's a big ass ocean between us and they won't let us take our guns when we go to visit.

[garthman]

But educate me on this Garth, why are Europeans so obsessed with gun laws in the USA? There's a big ass ocean between us and they won't let us take our guns when we go to visit.. . . .

 

 

I suppose we are just sorry that so many of you die by the use of them. It certainly seems very sad to me.

[fastblueheeler]

I suppose we are just sorry that so many of you die by the use of them. It certainly seems very sad to me.

Well I can't argue with that.

Couldn't you have been a little more pompous and arrogant?

[garthman]

You may be right Howard. What you have described I was taught is communism. Socialism, as we were taught, is more like communism light. The state does not own the means of production but does exercise great control through rules, regulations and tax codes. Wealth is redistributed under socialism, but the means of production, though heavily controlled, is still owned by individuals. By this definition (mine, not yours), we (the USA) have become a socialist state. So has Great Briton and all of Europe.

 

 

The definition of socialism I gave is, I believe, the generally accepted correct one and does, indeed, postulate that the creation and distribution of wealth is in the hands of the state not the individual (although, of course, under socialism every individual is de facto a shareholder in that wealth).

 

The trick to practical socialism - and it's a very difficult one - is to elect and maintain a government that acts altruistically in the interests of the community and does not descend to a selfish dictatorship.

[fastblueheeler]

The trick to practical socialism - and it's a very difficult one - is to elect and maintain a government that acts altruistically in the interests of the community and does not descend to a selfish dictatorship.

 

 

A very good trick indeed!

[totamus]

The definition of socialism I gave is, I believe, the generally accepted correct one and does, indeed, postulate that the creation and distribution of wealth is in the hands of the state not the individual (although, of course, under socialism every individual is de facto a shareholder in that wealth). The trick to practical socialism - and it's a very difficult one - is to elect and maintain a government that acts altruistically in the interests of the community and does not descend to a selfish dictatorship.

 

 

Socialism is a noble concept. Like everything though, the devil is in the details. Socialism seems to be particularly susceptible to corruption.

[Florida_Gator]

Obama IS a socialist. Wake up people.

Of course, he's a "stealth" socialist, but whatever. EVERY SINGLE person around him, his entire history, all of his $$ supporters, are socialists. But he's not? OK. Keep smoking the dope. It is AMAZING to me that all these facts are RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR FACE, and yet people still refuse to see it. Folks, the emperor has no clothes.

If you're an Obama supporter, great. But support him for his socialistic policies, don't claim he's not one.

One of DOZENS of examples:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/key-obama-ally-works-with-socialists-for-global-tax/